1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s subsequent supplement of appeal is unlawful.

The subsequent completion of procedural acts refers to the case where a party is unable to comply with the peremptory period due to a cause not attributable to him/her, and the case where the party cannot comply with the said period even though he/she had paid due attention to the said procedural acts, "reasons not attributable to him/her" refers to the case where the party cannot comply with the said period even though he/she had paid due attention to the said procedural acts.

Unless there are special circumstances, if a copy of complaint, original copy of judgment, etc. were served by service by public notice, the defendant was not aware of the service of the judgment without negligence. In such a case, the defendant falls under the case where the defendant was unable to comply with the peremptory term due to a cause not attributable to him and thus, the defendant may make subsequent appeal within 2 weeks (30 days in the case where the cause was in a foreign country at the time when the cause was terminated) after the cause was terminated. The "when the cause" refers to the case where the party or his legal representative was not simply known of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice, and in ordinary cases, the party or his legal representative becomes aware of the fact that the judgment was served by public notice only when the party or his legal representative inspected the records of the case, or when the original

In the case of this case, both a copy of the complaint against the defendant and a notice of the date of pleading against the defendant were served by public notice in the first instance court. On November 24, 201, the court of first instance sentenced the plaintiff's winning judgment on November 24, 201, and the service of the original copy of the judgment on December 6, 201 was also served on the defendant by public notice, and the defendant perused and copied the records of this case on December 18, 2014.